Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

My take on things is that things can change rapidly, espcially when you run across wildlife, and the way things go, you will have the wrong lens for the situation, meaning you'll have to change lenses to get the shot, which, in the process, you could very well miss. That's why I recommend a good bridge camera for the sake of convenience. The RX10iii is supreme and offers the most bang for the buck, IMO. The P900 comes next because it has the longer lens. Either one will do well unless you want to blow up images to wall size picture. Up to 11x14 or 16x20 if low ISO is used. Having it all in one package is a real convenience and you don't have to mess around with changing lenses out. Just my opinion.

ORpilot Loc: Prineville, Or

as a former Alaskan, I totally agree. That Is unless your name is Disney and all the animals want to be stars. I have yet to have animals stop and wait for me. That is why I use a long zoom Bridge camera . You always have the right lens on hand. Bridge cameras are small and they will easily fit under a raincoat or jacket, ready to whip out at a moments notice. Happy Shooting

jcolton

Raincoat? I need a raincoat??!!

ORpilot Loc: Prineville, Or

If you are going to the South East most definitely.. Some places see about 360 days of rain a year.

CamB Loc: Juneau, Alaska

Welcome to Southeast Alaska. Juneau sits right in the middle of the largest temperate rain forest in the world. The Tongass National Forest, at 14.7 million acres, is only a part of the larger rain forest. If you're going to be a photographer here you are going to be taking pictures in the rain (although the sun does make quick, guest appearances once in a while. Had one of those days a few weeks ago.)

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

The key word there is "acceptable". Your definition of acceptable could refer to images that someone else would find unacceptable. In fact you didn't even say good or excellent images, but rather just "acceptable" images. That wouldn't bode well for somebody wanting the best shots they can get.

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

In the final analysis, unless one is taking photos for the purposes of selling them or entering them into photo contests for recognition, the only one the photographer needs to please is himself or his/her family. So "acceptable" is a rather relative term.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Get the Minolta 500 AF Reflex - you will not be sorry !

AK Grandpa Loc: Anchorage, AK

Because of all the critics and pixel peepers on here, I chose the word "acceptable" . . . I should have said "excellent" and then let them criticize me for saying that . . . I've taken many excellent photos with my Tamron 18-270 and expect the same quality with the 18-400, which I haven't had the chance to use much yet.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Leave 70-200 and take 100-400 MII.
Better lens, focuses closer and saves carrying an extra lens.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Even the 400 5.6 would be better than the Sony RX 10. And I am waiting for the RX 10 IV to be released to get one. As good a camera as it is, it's 1" sensor can't really compare with the full frame sensor. Ever.

BB4A

True, I wasn't considering that renting a 7D MkII might represent a steep learning curve. We are all different, and why I personally really enjoyed working through all those options in a couple of days of experimental shooting, I also have to plead guilty to my Uber-Geekiness... I've been known to read engineering diagrams for entertainment.

I think we both agree on the main point; while there will never be a perfect lens for every animal that might just provide a shy glimpse of its rear end, anyone armed with the new EF 100-400L IS II USM will have a very good chance of capturing excellent photographs from close range up to maybe a quarter mile away (if it's a Big Beastly Beasty!). When you add in the ease of handholding and carrying just 3.5 lbs of lens, it's a great alternative to always being caught out changing a selection of large, heavy telephoto primes, at just the wrong moment.

If in doubt about learning the 7D MkII while on a trip, it's probably the best body for the buck in Canon's armory right now. Maybe rent it for a Months trial before you use it, or as Windshoppe did, take the plunge in plenty of time to be comfortable, before you shoot for real?

Chilimac

I bought a Sony RX 10 III for my trip to Alaska last year. The long lens was invaluable. It's a nice camera but one I have not used since unless I need the long lens. For someone who has used Nikons for 50 years I was very frustrated the shutter lag on the RX 10 III so when not needing the long lens used my Nikon 7200. Have a fun trip. Alaska is overwhelmingly beautiful and huge. I plan to return next year with the RX 10 III.